Zone1 I've been an atheist for 60 years and have never once been tempted to believe in any god

[ding]

History is evidence to the contrary.

The honest answer is it would prove Nietzsche's logic wrong.

And as for you belief that history proves that love cannot be created, expanded, grow or spread, I feel really bad for your personal history. Because mine shows it does.

 

[Arlette]

The honest answer is it would prove Nietzsche's logic wrong.

And as for you belief that history proves that love cannot be created, expanded, grow or spread, I feel really bad for your personal history. Because mine shows it does.

All the religious wars in the past prove you wrong and Nietzsche right.

 

[ding]

All the religious wars in the past prove you wrong and Nietzsche right.

Wow, really? I guess you only see the parts that confirm your bias. What could possibly go wrong going through life like that?

 

[Blues Man]

Wow, really? I guess you only see the parts that confirm your bias. What could possibly go wrong going through life like that?

Like your bias that your god is perfect and your religion cannot be questioned?

Pot Kettle (again), Donkey

 

[ding]

Like your bias that your god is perfect and your religion cannot be questioned?

Pot Kettle (again), Donkey

You aren't here to question. You are here to subordinate.

 

[badger2]

Time doesn't exist as a physical phenomenon. The best anyone can say is that time is a convenient measure of the expansion of the universe.

So outside of our existence time is meaningless. But to your point there cannot be an infinite number of causes which is precisely why God is the logical answer to the first cause.

Time must exist as a physical phenomenon. Otherwise, you're stuck with the conundrum that either the Universe has always already existed, or it was created.

 

[Donald H]

First, thanks for reading it and replying. Not sure where exactly I spoke about it, but I would say I did, even though I set out to explain (as best I could) the source of my faith, not creationism (in any Biblical sense). The issue is again what constitutes 'creationism' in your view, I think. I identify God (the supreme God) as the creator of structures within meaning itself, from which the physical Universe derives in a strong sense. In my view, humans are like a higher order effect of physics, with physics itself (time and space) as a creation too and entirely dependent on a structure within meaning.

Still though, I'll read the longer post you made and try to understand your reply in general, but as you said it is lengthy lol (thanks for the post), I will try that later.

Thanks. I kept my replies short so that we wouldn't get tied up with too many different topics at the same time.

 

[badger2]

Ah yes, the new testament of which was decided after long deliberation by politically well-connected humans in the Roman Empire. Centuries after Jesus's death. Nice lol.

Hardly. John on Patmos quilling away into the night, going bananas with self-glossing delusions is what you get with the Book of Revelation.

 

[badger2]

Thanks. I kept my replies short so that we wouldn't get tied up with too many different topics at the same time.

The topic is inherently complex, Einstein.

 

[luiza]

To Crack Crock Cuckoo

Have you sorted out your age yet?
Remember you told us you were 53 but claim to have been an Atheist for 60 years .
We all want to know how you did that ?
Even more amazing than your normal strange scribble .

 

[Donald H]

Wow, really? I guess you only see the parts that confirm your bias. What could possibly go wrong going through life like that?

Take control of your anger. It's only your demonstration of being unsure of what you believe.

That goes for all the other Christians too.

 

[Donald H]

The topic is inherently complex, Einstein.

I wouldn't disagree, but the topic at question isn't. There's no evidence to say that Einstein ever tried to reconcile creation and evolution together.

Do you know of such?

 

[ding]

Time must exist as a physical phenomenon. Otherwise, you're stuck with the conundrum that either the Universe has always already existed, or it was created.

It doesn't. Time is just a convenient way to mark the expansion of the universe.

 

[ding]

Take control of your anger. It's only your demonstration of being unsure of what you believe.

That goes for all the other Christians too.

I'm pretty happy right now and I've never been accused of not being certain. If anything you guys are pissed because I am so certain.

I'm not the one who is being exposed as being intolerant of others having different beliefs. I'm a live and let live kind of guy. You on the other hand want everyone to think the same and be the same. What fun is that? That's totally against nature. God loves diversity. He created it.

So you play your game and I'll play my game. Fair enough?

 

[Donald H]

I'm pretty happy right now and I've never been accused of not being certain. If anything you guys are pissed because I am so certain.

I'm not the one who is being exposed as being intolerant of others having different beliefs. I'm a live and let live kind of guy. You on the other hand want everyone to think the same and be the same. What fun is that? That's totally against nature. God loves diversity. He created it.

So you play your game and I'll play my game. Fair enough?

Fair enough, only there's no need for anger. Your own church created the issue that hangs around your neck like a dead albatross. They left it dangling without an explanation that can work and be understood by the flock. And now America threatens a split in your church, complete with filthy accusations against the Pope!

Direct your anger at those who have caused good solid literal believing Catholics so much pain.

 

[badger2]

It doesn't. Time is just a convenient way to mark the expansion of the universe.

Your reasoning is faulty. Yes time exists, because if the Universe was created, at that very instant it began to age. Theology attempts to rescue god's funky, non-existent ass from finitude. In reality, nothing escapes the coming of time.

Derrida's arche-writing (trace) is more original than god.

'Derrida first asserts that for something to happen, there must be both a chance and a threat. He then asserts that this double bind cannot even in principle be eliminated, since if nothing happened there would be nothing at all. What I want to stress is that this argument presupposes that being is essentially temporal (to be = to happen) and that it is inherently valuable that something happens (the worst = that nothing happens).

In other words, it presupposes that (temporal finitude is the condition for everything that is desirable [italics]). Metaphysical and religious traditions have readily admitted that nothing can happen in the ideal realm of eternity, but they have been able to dismiss this problem by not ascribing any inherent value to the temporal.

On the contrary, the most desirable has explicitly been posited as the immutable and the inviolable - in short, as that to which nothing can happen.
....
Rather, I will show that deconstructive notions such as "arche-writing" operate on an ultratranscendental level, which allows us to think the necessary synthesis to time without grounding it in a nontemporal unity.'
(Haegglund, Radical Atheism: Derrida and the Time of Life)

John of Patmos quilling deliriously away belies the becoming time of space and the becoming space of time.

'Kant here rehearses the problem that haunts his transcendental aesthetic, namely, that time as the form of inner sense cannot provide a ground for the subject. Since the temporal can never be in itself, it must be synthesized by something other than itself, in order to appear as such. No alteration - and hence no passage of time - can be marked without something that persists as a measure of the change.
....
Derrida can be said to radicalize the above account of time and space. For Derrida, time and space are not transcendental forms of human intuition, which would be given in the same way regardless of their empirical conditions. Rather, the ultratranscendental status of spacing deconstructs the traditional divide between the transcendental and the empirical.

If time must be spatially inscribed, then experience of time is essentially dependent on which material supports and technologies are available to inscribe time. That is why Derrida maintains that inscriptions do not befall an already constituted space but produce the spatiality of space. Derrida can thus think the experience of space and time as constituted by historical and technological conditions, without reducing spacing to an effect of a certain historical or technological epoch.

If spacing were merely an effect of historical conditions, it would supervene on something that precedes it and thus adhere to the metaphysical notion of spacing as a Fall. Spacing is rather an ultratranscendental condition because there has never been and will never be a self-presence that grounds the passage between past and future.
(Haegglund, Radical Atheism, pp. 26-7)

 

[zaangalewa]

Yeah when we die we die.

Until you can show me someone who has been "reborn" as themselves I have no reason to believe it can or will happen.

Hmm ... not my problem. I was once nearly dead and practically in heaven when a kind of light asked me whether I would do him the favor to go back into this life here. I did (and do) not ask "why?" because I knew/know I will get no answer. Maybe one day I'll just have to get an old lady safely across the road. But I asked whether I have the risk in this case to go to hell the next time when I will die. A "voice" said to me I will share all risks with everyone else here - also this risk. Nevertheless I agreed. ... And now for you: Sure this had been only some kind of dreams of a nearly dead person with weird brain functions. No need to change anything in your belief. But this unusual experience started to change my life slowly, continuously and drastically. But I fear now my risk to go to hell grew when I see what is going on in the world now. I hope I will not have to kill someone. Nevertheless I think I made the right decision - but only god knows.

I say this to make you clear: The safety you are looking for you will never get on this planet here. You are what you decide. And what you drastically misinterpret is it that atheism is also only a spiritual belief. A self fulfilling belief which never will ask you something - because you believe not to believe. For me is your life in your form to think a sad life. I would wish you could believe in god. But that's not my decision.



Ich steh an deiner Krippen hier,
o Jesulein, mein Leben;
ich komme, bring und schenke dir,
was du mir hast gegeben.
Nimm hin, es ist mein Geist und Sinn,
Herz, Seel und Mut, nimm alles hin
und laß dir’s wohlgefallen.

-----

I stand here at your manger,
O little Jesus, my life;
I come, bring and give you
what you have given me.
Receive, it is my spirit and mind,
heart, soul and courage, take it all
and let it please you.

 

[badger2]

Hmm ... not my problem. I was once nearly dead and practically in heaven when a kind of light asked me whether I would do him the favor to go back into this life here. I dod not ask "why?" because I knew I will get no answer. Perhaps I have only to bring an old lady one day save over a street. But I asked whether I have the risk in this case to go to hell the next time when I will die. The voice said to me I will share all risks with everyone else here - also this risk. Nevertheless I agreed. ... And now for you: Sure this had been only some kind of dreams or of a nearly dead person with weird brain functions. No need to change anything in your belief. But this unusual experience started to change my life slowly, continuously and drastically. But I fear now my risk to go to hell grew when I see what is going on in the world now. I hope I will not have to kill someone. Nevertheless I think I made the right decision - but only god knows.

Horse manure. Jungians would disagree and say that you're afraid to know the darkness. So your assigned syllabus should include James Hillman, A Blue Fire.

 

[Donald H]

Horse manure. Jungians would disagree and say that you're afraid to know the darkness. So your assigned syllabus should include James Hillman, A Blue Fire.

The grammar isn't any indication of even average intelligence.

 

[zaangalewa]

Horse manure. Jungians would disagree and say that you're afraid to know the darkness. So your assigned syllabus should include James Hillman, A Blue Fire.

Do you speak with me? About what? Your unability to survive? Your drugs? Who are you, gnome? What do you like to hear from me?